Recent Topics
Anyone using Cooler master Elite Desktop?
by FirstNissan
7 minutes 27 seconds ago
Fluid Change in 2008 Explorer
by BrandonVA
25 minutes 27 seconds ago
Wix racing air filters
by pjc360
30 minutes 35 seconds ago
Sump pump or Sewage Pump
by Bluestream
39 minutes 1 second ago
Best Car wash / wax combo
by BrandonVA
39 minutes 13 seconds ago
POSTING PHOTOS OF BIKE & OIL REPORTS
by RevRider
52 minutes 30 seconds ago
2010 Malibu UOA PU 5W-30 8.7k opinions?
by SubieRubyRoo
Today at 05:57 PM
What happens to oil during a warm start?
by cabanalane
Today at 05:42 PM
You want to be a school Principal?
by CourierDriver
Today at 05:22 PM
Windows Phone and .NET
by BearZDefect
Today at 05:11 PM
2011 Fusion PU 5W-20 9.6k WITH MOTORKOTE!
by SubieRubyRoo
Today at 04:42 PM
coolant capacity 06 lacross 3.8
by lucerne06
Today at 04:31 PM
Newest Members
Mkurmve, l1tech, greyghost, banderso, ovidiu
51649 Registered Users
Who's Online
120 registered (01rangerxl, 04SE, 3Aone, 901Memphis, 86cutlass307, 10 invisible), 1839 Guests and 195 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51649 Members
64 Forums
221022 Topics
3493414 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#2307456 - 07/06/11 04:18 AM Transynd Fluid?
disturban Offline


Registered: 03/15/09
Posts: 186
Loc: michigan
A lot of people on the Diesel forums are switching their Allison transmissions from Dexron VI to Transynd with fantastic results. They say the Transynd is a superior fluid even when compared to the almighty DEX VI, I was wondering if this is a fluid that would work well in other GM transmissions like the 4L60E or 4L80E?

Top
#2307465 - 07/06/11 06:13 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
Doug Hillary Offline


Registered: 05/30/03
Posts: 4857
Loc: Airlie Beach Australia
Hi,
disturban - You must use a fluid with the correct specification - Dexron V1 may or not be part of the specification. As for Castrol Transynd it is an excellent product when used in the correct application and according to its specification
_________________________
Regards
Doug

Top
#2307478 - 07/06/11 06:40 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
pbm Offline


Registered: 04/19/04
Posts: 5245
Loc: New York
I believe that fellow BITOGer Onion runs Transynd in his 4T65Es with great results. Look at some of his old posts.

Top
#2307826 - 07/06/11 01:40 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
Ken2 Offline


Registered: 12/02/02
Posts: 6201
Loc: Washington St.
Transynd is the trade name for BP/Castrol's synthetic ATF that is licensed under Allison's TES-295 spec and formerly under the Dexron-III spec. Putting Transynd into a transmission made for Dex-VI is putting a syn Dex-III fluid into it. If the transmission was made for Dex-III, great, use any fluid that meets Dex-III specs or is licensed as TES-389, the same as Dex-III with a new name. If the transmission was made for Dex-VI and you put in a Dex-III fluid, the risk is yours.

By the way, there are other TES-295 ATFs licensed by Allison other than Castrol's Transynd, and there is also Amsoil's unlicensed TES-295 copy. And many syn fluids that either meet the Dex-III spec or are "recommended" where Dex-III was spec'ed.
_________________________
Every gun that is made, every warship launched..a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Gen. Eisenhower


Top
#2308010 - 07/06/11 06:01 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
onion Offline


Registered: 02/04/07
Posts: 2097
Loc: kansastan
I've had Transynd in my '01 Lumina's 4T65e for the past 30K or so. This particular transmission didn't shift well when I 'upgraded' to DexVI (the 1-2 up-shift started a nasty slip & grab behavior at full throttle). Did a complete flush with Transynd and it solved the problem.

Transynd is a synthetic atf that meets DexIIIG specs, along with a laundry-list of industrial specs... and should work fine in any application calling for that.

As for whether Transynd or DexVI is 'better' in the Allison transmissions in those GM trucks- I dunno. From what I've read, there's very little in the way of 'proof' or solid info that's readily available to us mere consumers (lots of claims, lots of anecdotal evidence... very little in the way of data). The choice of OEM fluids in that particular transmission is based more on corporate politics than any distinct advantage. Personally I doubt you'd notice any real difference between the two.

In non-Allison applications calling for DexVI, I have no doubt that Transynd would work. But for how long? And under what conditions? And would it cause warranty issues? Transynd is a weird looking ATF once it gets some miles on it- turns a strange yellow color with a reddish tint... it would DEFINITELY be noticed by the tech if there was a warranty issue. IMO it would be analogous to putting a fluid like Amsoil, Maxlife, etc. into an application that wasn't designed for it (although one would assume that Amsoil and Valvoline have done some testing for automotive applications... I dunno if we can assume that with Transynd, with the exception of GM pickups. It would work- but you'd be taking your chances.

I've seen no reason to believe that Transynd is a "better" fluid than DexVI in any way. My own results tell me that the friction properties of Transynd are somewhat different than those of DexVI- and said friction properties of Transynd work better in my 230,000-mile 4T65e. But I wouldn't bet that everybody else would have the same experience. If a transmission was designed with DexVI in mind, the friction properties of DexVI would probably be more suitable than those of Transynd.

_________________________
The invisible and the imaginary look exactly the same.

Top
#2309211 - 07/07/11 10:31 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
My understanding of using tes 295 fluid in Allison transmissions, is there is a cutoff serial number where you can use Dex III before the cutoff, Dex VI after. tes 295 is recommended for heavy use applications and extended drain in Allisons. Allison has an extended warranty program that includes a requirement to use tes 295 fluid. The maintenence schedules show some impressive increase in change intervals. Some of the applications look pretty tough, such as garbage trucks with many starts per mile. The longest change intervals aren't allowed until after a couple of changes ensuring little dilution of the tes 295 fluid with the original fluid.

I changed the fluid in my 2003 Silverado with a 4L60 at 25K with Delvac tes 295. The original fluid spec was Dex III. It shifts very nice, maybe a bit better than the factory fluid. I am confident it is a durable fluid for my transmission.

Top
#2310341 - 07/09/11 02:57 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: ledslinger]
disturban Offline


Registered: 03/15/09
Posts: 186
Loc: michigan
I have a 2000 4L60E that calls for DexIII, the first 100k on this truck was cushy driving and mostly freeway and at 100k I did a pan drop and filter change as well as flushed all fluid out and replaced with DexVI, I also added a Transgo HD2 Shift kit and billet servos and 4th gear super apply servo. I added a B&M drain plug also.

The truck has a custom tune on it and shift points and line pressure are tweaked. Now with 160k on it I have done two pan drain and refills, I plan on draining just the pan and refilling every 30k because the truck see's a lot of hard driving now, towing, off road, ect.

So far the transmission is holding up great and shifts are fast and firm, I was just curious about the Transynd because all the Allison guys are raving about it but it seems to me I have the superior fluid and it is working great so I am not going to change anything.

Thank you all for the info...this site rocks!

Top
#2310375 - 07/09/11 06:16 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
Originally Posted By: disturban
I have a 2000 4L60E that calls for DexIII, the first 100k on this truck was cushy driving and mostly freeway and at 100k I did a pan drop and filter change as well as flushed all fluid out and replaced with DexVI, I also added a Transgo HD2 Shift kit and billet servos and 4th gear super apply servo. I added a B&M drain plug also.

The truck has a custom tune on it and shift points and line pressure are tweaked. Now with 160k on it I have done two pan drain and refills, I plan on draining just the pan and refilling every 30k because the truck see's a lot of hard driving now, towing, off road, ect.

So far the transmission is holding up great and shifts are fast and firm, I was just curious about the Transynd because all the Allison guys are raving about it but it seems to me I have the superior fluid and it is working great so I am not going to change anything.

Thank you all for the info...this site rocks!


You are correct Transynd used to have a DEXRON-III approval but lost it in the G to H upgrade as it could not pass some of the more demanding requirements. Also compared to DEXRON-VI it is less durable in friction since it utilises a now comparatively old DEXRON-III additive package.

Probably fine for it's intended application but it is not magic.

The DEXRON-VI that you are using is superior for your application.


Edited by Whitewolf (07/09/11 06:16 AM)
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2310688 - 07/09/11 03:54 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
I found this article about Shell Donax TX. They are using the same approach as Scheaffer and Amsoil and not getting this fluid certified. They claim both Dex III H and TES 295 performance.

http://www.imakenews.com/rotella/e_article000539098.cfm?x=b11,0,w

This link doesn't work so copy and enter it in a google search. Or just google search Shell Donax TX. Shell's product info says it is semi-synthetic.

Top
#2310897 - 07/09/11 07:46 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: ledslinger]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
That is very interesting.

My question is how would one provide proof of performance when the given specification has been obsolete for a number of years?

Of course they will say that the formulation has not changed since it was originally approved. What else would you expect?
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2314756 - 07/13/11 11:38 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
Looking for more info on Transynd, I found an expert posting on several forums. Tom Johnson aka "Mr Transynd" worked for Allison 1990-2008 and wrote the specs for TES 295. If you do a google seach for Tom Johnson Mr Transynd, you will find several threads on RV, Duramax, and diesel forums. He seems willing to answer any questions posed about Allisons and fluids. It would be nice to compel him to join here.

Top
#2315022 - 07/13/11 04:49 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
onion Offline


Registered: 02/04/07
Posts: 2097
Loc: kansastan
Now that would make for some fun reading... an oil-nerd fight between WhiteWolf and Mr Transynd. shoot
_________________________
The invisible and the imaginary look exactly the same.

Top
#2315113 - 07/13/11 06:51 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
Thanks for the "oil nerd alert!"

Top
#2333205 - 07/31/11 12:50 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
ForcedInduction Offline


Registered: 12/29/06
Posts: 11
Loc: Colorado
My shop uses Transynd in all our buses, 1st and 3rd gen ZF Ecomats. After 20k miles the oil is always brown and burnt. I believe its due to the small cooler and heavy retarder use but I honestly wouldn't use Transynd in any serious working vehicle.
_________________________
1982 Mercedes 300D VNT
GT2356V VNT turbo, A/W intercooler, W/M injection, Mobil1 5W-40 and ATF.

Top
#2334189 - 08/01/11 02:15 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: ForcedInduction]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
What other fluids have surpassed Transynd performance in this application?

Top
#2334761 - 08/02/11 01:58 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: ledslinger]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
None apart from DEXRON-VI!
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2335661 - 08/02/11 08:30 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
onion Offline


Registered: 02/04/07
Posts: 2097
Loc: kansastan
Care to post some data to back that up? Or a link? Or something?
_________________________
The invisible and the imaginary look exactly the same.

Top
#2335865 - 08/02/11 11:20 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: onion]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
Well can someone post the DEXRON-III (H) licence for Transynd?
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2336014 - 08/03/11 07:32 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
I lifted this info from an RV forum post by Mr Transynd:

Allison did approve DEXRON-III ATF for many years until I saw a need to change that. The problem was always viscosity loss in DEXRON type fluids. They were good fluids from every other aspect but they tended to lose viscosity (some could lose as much as 50-60%). So the problem we had was keeping the drain intervals low enough to avoid significant viscosity loss that could affect transmission durability. If you use a TES-389 fluid (DEXRON-IIIH) you need to drain it per recommendations. These fluids lose viscosity and could result in wear if you run them too long. Also, cooling efficiency drops due to reduced flow in the cooling circuit because the fluid is thinner. So, as long as you're following recommended TES-389 drain intervals, you'll be OK. However, unless you're changing it yourself, the labor to change fluid will eventually be more than the TranSynd since you can run it 150,000 miles in the 1000/2000 Series and 300,000 miles in the 3000/4000 Series.

PS: That's why I'm on this forum. I'm here to settle all the arguments concerning Allison fluid recommendations and specs since I'm the guy that wrote all of them.

PSS: TES-389 fluids are all DEXRON-IIIH fluids. That's why the drain intervals are so short compared to TranSynd and TES-295 fluids. We launched the TES-389 specification because some folks just could not bring themselves to spend the extra money for TranSynd or another TES-295 fluid. But, it's false economy .... TranSYnd and the other TES-295 fluids are worth it (by a large margin)

Top
#2336961 - 08/04/11 12:07 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
onion Offline


Registered: 02/04/07
Posts: 2097
Loc: kansastan
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Well can someone post the DEXRON-III (H) licence for Transynd?


I don't see anybody making the claim that Transynd meets this now-defunct spec. You say that DexVI 'has surpassed Transynd performance'. I'd like to see some kind of data or info to back that up.

I understand that you're saying that Transynd didn't meet the DexIII(H) spec (or DexVI for that matter). But as I'm sure you're quite aware, there's more to a spec than "performance". For all WE Transynd could have missed the spec by .01% on some nitpicky detail that nobody here would care about. Without more info, it really doesn't mean a whole lot.

For that matter, DexVI does not meet the TES-295 spec. Does that mean that Transynd 'has surpassed DexVI performance'? No... all it means is that we're comparing apples and oranges. But in this case both fluids are commonly used in some of the same applications. So any info that you can provide beyond "it doesn't meet the spec" would be helpful.
_________________________
The invisible and the imaginary look exactly the same.

Top
#2338868 - 08/06/11 12:27 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: onion]
bruce381 Offline


Registered: 06/23/05
Posts: 3324
Loc: Millbrae, CA
Hi Whitewold
I have not posted here in a long time anyway if Whitewolf says Dex 6 is the best take that to the bank.

bruce CLS

Top
#2339092 - 08/06/11 10:47 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: bruce381]
onion Offline


Registered: 02/04/07
Posts: 2097
Loc: kansastan
Originally Posted By: bruce381
Hi Whitewold
I have not posted here in a long time anyway if Whitewolf says Dex 6 is the best take that to the bank.

bruce CLS


It's not that I disagree with him- I don't.

I just want to see some info that goes beyond "it doesn't meet the spec". That doesn't tell us a whole [censored] of a lot.
_________________________
The invisible and the imaginary look exactly the same.

Top
#2340424 - 08/07/11 06:47 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: onion]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
Thanks Bruce for your welcome input.

For the rest of you try reading SAE 2007 01 3987.
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2340684 - 08/07/11 11:41 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14637
Loc: Midwest
Quote:
Also, cooling efficiency drops due to reduced flow in the cooling circuit because the fluid is thinner.


OK, we know some of the older ATF fluids decreased in viscosity primarily due to the lower quality Viscosity index improvers and the fact the base fluids themselves did not have good viscosity indices.

But a fluids ability to transfer heat is primarily determined by it's specific heat capacity and mass density, and both are taken as constants.
_________________________
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine smile

Top
#2341038 - 08/08/11 12:22 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: MolaKule]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
I thought that was a strange one too. The only thing I could come up with was that flow was reduced due to the oil pump losing efficiency when viscosity dropped.

Top
#2341361 - 08/08/11 06:19 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14637
Loc: Midwest
I would think pump efficiency, in terms of volumetric flow, would increase due to less viscous drag.

In an AT we can consider the fluid system to be mostly isobaric or constant pressure.

For lubricating fluids, Viscosity is mostly temperature dependent and virtually pressure independent.

The only place I know where the ratio of specific heats vary significantly is at the high temps and pressures encountered in a turbine engine, but these are for gases and not liquids.
_________________________
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine smile

Top
#2341378 - 08/08/11 06:33 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: MolaKule]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but this article may discuss viscosity effects on gear type pumps:

http://www.dynavis.net/Images/STLE02pumpeffmodel.pdf

Top
#2341634 - 08/08/11 10:34 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
onion Offline


Registered: 02/04/07
Posts: 2097
Loc: kansastan
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Thanks Bruce for your welcome input.

For the rest of you try reading SAE 2007 01 3987.


Yeah, requiring me to read a paper that costs $22... that'll shut me up. LOL

I'm trying to get it for free via the local university library. We'll see if that pans out.

[censored] SAE and their copyrights.
_________________________
The invisible and the imaginary look exactly the same.

Top
#2342346 - 08/09/11 06:57 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14637
Loc: Midwest
In a high pressure pump of 2500 to 4000 psi, anytime a fluid thins one can have cavitation and leakage. There is always some leakage in a pump, especially at high pressures since no pump is perfect, and this effect becomes more pronounced at high pressures.

In our case the pressures are around 150 psi for AT's and 50 psi for engines.

The statement made earlier
Quote:
Also, cooling efficiency drops due to reduced flow in the cooling circuit because the fluid is thinner.


just didn't make me feel the author was overtly qualified, since 1) he didn't mention any sources of info to back up his statement, 2) the sentence led me to believe he was referring to the fluid's characteristics, 3) all texts on thermal-fluid interactions I have read show viscosity is only lightly dependent on pressure.

Had he said "cooloing system efficiency" it would have been more specific which would then have included the pump. I know, I am nitpicking but words and sentences DO have meaning.


Edited by MolaKule (08/09/11 07:06 PM)
_________________________
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine smile

Top
#2400142 - 10/08/11 04:56 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
More info by Tom Johnson who wrote the TES-295 specs:


With regard to what to put into an Allison 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Series, my recommendation will always be TranSynd or another TES-295 approved product (and not just because I approved all of these products). TranSynd (and the other TES-295 products) cannot lose viscosity because there's nothing to shear (no IV improvers). ALso, it's formulated with only PAO (polyalphaolefin) base oils so there's also very little oxidation over many many hours and miles of use. We tested TranSynd for thousands of hours in city buses with retarders and garbage trucks (refuse packers) and never saw any sign of oxidation or shear. TranSynd and the TES-295 specification (which I wrote) did wonders to fix all the problems we (Allison) used to have with C4 oils and DEXRON-IIIH transmission fluids. So, whether it's an RV with a 4000 Series or a pickup with a 1000 Series, you should be running TranSynd for the highest possible performance and durability. It really is worth the money.

About Seals Compatibility - TranSynd has never been associated with seal problems in any Allison lab tests or in any Allison field/fleet tests. So, I don't believe leaks are associated with TranSynd. ALso, when GM first came out with DEXRON-VI, Allison found it was incompatible with older Viton type seals. So, Allison does not recommend the use of GM DEXRON-VI ATF except in GM pickups with the Allison 1000 Series transmission. Allison seal materials were later updated to be compatible with DEXRON-VI. GM sold Allison and after that Allison no longer had a seat on the GM ATF Committee (a seat I used to hold). So, Allison ended its association with GM and removed DEXRON-VI from all recommendations.

One more thing. When changing from a DEXRON-IIIH product, always drain and fill twice to ensure maximum TranSynd content. Flushing machines are not typically recommended and usually give the same results as a double drain and fill (per a test we ran at Allison).

If you're only operating for 4000 miles or so per year, you'd be able to run TranSynd out past the calendar year restrictions. However, you should use oil analysis to verify it. Not just because I now do oil and coolant analysis, but because it's the only way to ensure that the fluid remains stable (from an oxidation, shear, and contaminants standpoint) and that the transmission wear metals are OK.

Amsoil has never ran against the TES-295 spec to my knowledge. I was never asked to test it

TES-389 is strictly DEXRON-IIIH fluids. I wrote the specification after Allison had Viton seal problems with DEXRON-VI. We wanted to "weed out" any DEXRON-IIIH that had the same seal compatibility issues as DEXRON-VI. The TES-389 specification required proof of a DEXRON-IIIH license plus running of a special Viton seal test. Any DEXRON-IIIH products that passed the tests were granted the TES-389 approval.

TES-389 is not as good at TES-295 fluids. Much less oxidation resistance and tons more viscosity loss. That's why the drain intervals are so much shorter for TES-389 fluids.

At the low mileage you're putting on the TranSynd, I'd say do an oil analysis at the beginning of each travel season and don't change it until the oil analysis says to. Your only concern should be contamination from water or glycol but it's a low probability on both. Change if water gets to over 0.2%.

I think you can get the dipstick "TranSynd Only" labels from Allison on their website.

The easiest way to collect a sample is down through the dipstick tube. You'll want to sample the fluid warm or at normal operating temperature.

Yes. TranSynd is OK for the HT740 series

Here's the deal. I believe you can run filters longer but you'll need to run oil analysis and it "must" include particle count and should include ISO Cleanliness Code. Oil analysis will tell you all you need to know about the fluid life (provided you're also getting the TAN (Total Acid Number) information. The only thing a typical oil analysis won't tell you is how much debris (particles/millileter) and the size of the particles (micron sizes) that are circulating through your system. Allison filters are sized to pass finer particles (approximately 30 microns or smaller)so that the filters won't "load up" in a short amount of time. Anything above 30 microns should be trapped by the filter. Generally, the larger the particle, the less there are of them. Tiny particles (around 4-14 microns in size) are abundant in most systems. These tiny particles generally due little harm the transmission unless they are very hard particles like sand (which shows up as excessive "silicon") in an oil sample.

Bottom Line: All systems are different in the way the collect debris and your duty cycle and location are a big part of what gets picked up through the breather. So, filters are kind of difficult to manage. It can be done but it takes particle count data at a bare minimum to do it. Most folks may not want to take that on.

Nope !!! I no longer recommend anyone use DEXRON-III. Use TranSynd or another TES-295 for the best possible performance and durability. DEXRON-III is an obsolete spec so anything these days is being manufactured under the label D3/M meaning DEXRON-III/MERCON. These fluids are manufactured and sold but have no license and are no longer approved by either GM or Ford. I used to sit on the GM DEXRON-III committee and I can tell you that these fluids are no longer evaluated by anyone at GM. So, it's sort of like "buyer beware" when it comes to any DEXRON-III (D3M) products on today's market. Also, do not use DEXRON-VI due to possible seal issues with your older MT transmission.

PS: D3M fluids (DEXRON-III) tend to lose viscosity so cooling won't be as good due to lower cooling circuit flow. Unless you change it every 25,000 miles. So, just put in TranSYnd adn you should be good for at least 100,000 miles. Don't forget to change the filters too.

I agree completely with wny_pat !!! I couldn't have said it better myself. I came up with the concept of TranSynd and wrote the TES-295 spec to fix two distinct problems we were having with transmission fluids. We were experiencing short lives with DEXRON-III fluids and with Allison C4 oils. The DEXRON-IIIs were losing too much viscosity and the Allison C4 oils (mostly engine oils) were oxidizing too quickly. TranSynd and the TES-295 specification fixed both problems and it truly is a great product. So, I'm not sure why anyone would put anything in an Allison accept TranSynd or a TES-295 approved product unless I can come up with something almost as good (with a life around 100,000 miles and about $10/gal cheaper). Would such a product be attractive to you all?

Allison did approve DEXRON-III ATF for many years until I saw a need to change that. The problem was always viscosity loss in DEXRON type fluids. They were good fluids from every other aspect but they tended to lose viscosity (some could lose as much as 50-60%). So the problem we had was keeping the drain intervals low enough to avoid significant viscosity loss that could affect transmission durability. If you use a TES-389 fluid (DEXRON-IIIH) you need to drain it per recommendations. These fluids lose viscosity and could result in wear if you run them too long. Also, cooling efficiency drops due to reduced flow in the cooling circuit because the fluid is thinner. So, as long as you're following recommended TES-389 drain intervals, you'll be OK. However, unless you're changing it yourself, the labor to change fluid will eventually be more than the TranSynd since you can run it 150,000 miles in the 1000/2000 Series and 300,000 miles in the 3000/4000 Series.

PS: That's why I'm on this forum. I'm here to settle all the arguments concerning Allison fluid recommendations and specs since I'm the guy that wrote all of them.

PSS: TES-389 fluids are all DEXRON-IIIH fluids. That's why the drain intervals are so short compared to TranSynd and TES-295 fluids. We launched the TES-389 specification because some folks just could not bring themselves to spend the extra money for TranSynd or another TES-295 fluid. But, it's false economy .... TranSYnd and the other TES-295 fluids are worth it (by a large margin).

I would say you could let it get to 250F but only intermittently.

Converter out ("To Cooler") will be the highest temperature. Allison allows 330F max converter out temperature before the electronics will inhibit functionality to try to cool the transmission. Sump will be typically between 180F and 220F. The lowest temperature should be "From Cooler". The temperature drop across the cooler is dependent upon air flow, surface area and cooler flow. I would pay the most attention to the sump temperature since it is a function of the cooler circuit design and flow. It should be the most stable since cooler in and cooler out temperatures vary more depending on how much you operate in converter mode vs. lockup mode and have less of a "heat sink" affect meaning the heat disipation rate (heat transfer) will be more efficient in the smaller mass of the converter in and out sensors.

It could get contaminated with water but that's about it. The fluid won't go bad (from a performance standpoint) by just sitting. I never believed in the calendar time limit but got voted down on this. The fluid if just left to sit and without contamination should be good for 10 years or more

Sorry but they're all expensive because they're all true synthetics (PAO, polyalphaolefin) based. That's what's keeping the cost high; however, if you take full advantage of the drain intervals, you'll still be money ahead. I wouldn't change your fluid unless oil analysis condemns it. If it's a mixture, that will show up in the viscosity. If it's above 6.5 cSt (centiStokes) at 100C then it's probably still good. If you change filters, just top it off with TranSynd or a TES-295 product and you should be OK. Oil analysis will tell you.

Tests are run in accordance with ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) procedures. Typical tests are ICP (Inductive Coupled Plasma) for wear, contamination, and additive metals. Viscosmeters for viscosity at 100C. Contaminants by GC (Gas Chromotography) and FTIR (Fourier Transform Infra-Red). Total Acid Number (TAN) and/or Total Base Number (TBN) for titration of KOH (Potassium Hydroxide) and Oxidation/Nitration by FTIR. Condemning limits are set based on an historical database of like equipment and like oils.

DEXRON-VI is a mix of Group II and Group III base oils plus additives. A true synthetic will contain Group IV base oils which are called PAO (polyalphaolefins). TranSynd and the other TES-295 fluids all contain PAO only. Base oils are divided into these groups based on sulfur content, viscosity index, and amount of saturates.

To learn more about Base Oil Groups, go to API.org (American Petroleum Institute).

Top
#2400148 - 10/08/11 05:08 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: ledslinger]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
At the end of the day just cut the [censored] and tell me and all of us what the Transynd approval number was for DEXRON-II(H)!
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2400161 - 10/08/11 05:35 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
The comments above appear to be a compilation of responses to questions, and don't have smooth transition between topics. Since the questions aren't printed, it requires intuition to establish context in places.

Top
#2400165 - 10/08/11 05:37 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
At the end of the day just cut the [censored] and tell me and all of us what the Transynd approval number was for DEXRON-II(H)!


Do you know it was ever submitted for Dex IIIH approval?

Mr Johnson might find it laughable to question if a fluid designed and intended to surpass Dex IIIH performance wouldn't even meet the original fluid's specs.

Top
#2400178 - 10/08/11 05:49 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: ledslinger]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
Yes I do happen to know.
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2400201 - 10/08/11 06:18 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 33776
Loc: New Jersey
Given the commentary about dex vi not being suitable for viton seals, and seemingly that transynd tes-295 is a superior, quality-controlled replacement for dex III...

Which is better for 20-30yo NON-GM ATs specced for dex II?

Thanks!

Top
#2400480 - 10/08/11 11:50 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
onion Offline


Registered: 02/04/07
Posts: 2097
Loc: kansastan
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Yes I do happen to know.


Awesome. Now could you give us some detail as to what specific criteria Trasnynd failed to meet? And some data to go along with it?

Thanks.
_________________________
The invisible and the imaginary look exactly the same.

Top
#2400516 - 10/09/11 12:54 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: onion]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
Originally Posted By: onion
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Yes I do happen to know.


Awesome. Now could you give us some detail as to what specific criteria Trasnynd failed to meet? And some data to go along with it?

Thanks.


I think that I have already done that and quoted SAE papers to support my opinion.
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2441761 - 11/22/11 12:26 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
gmctodd Offline


Registered: 11/29/07
Posts: 225
Loc: Happy Valley, PA
So whitewolf if I may,

My 2006 GMC 3500 Allison transmission came factory filled with DexVI, but according to the serial number cutoffs issued by Allison my seals are NOT Dex VI compatible. At 66,000 miles I had no idea what previous service/fluid type had occured. I did two drain and refills with Castrol HD MP ATF which is TES 389 approved. I was considering going to Transynd for the extended drain interval. What would you suggest?
1. Dex III(tes 389)
2. Dex VI
3. Transynd or any other tes295 fluid

Thanks,
_________________________
Todd

06 GMC Sierra 3500 D/A DRW-Wolfs head Extreme duty/Fram TG
08 Envoy-Wolfs Head Super duty 5w30/PL25288


Top
#2443180 - 11/23/11 06:50 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: gmctodd]
nascarnation Offline


Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 617
Loc: Indiana
I worked with TJ at Allison and ran a lot of the dyno durability tests on TES-295 fluids.

Dex VI was intended @ GM for automotive fuel economy (a big deal when scrambling for every tenth of CAFE mpg).

TES-295 was intended @ Allison for best durability in city transit buses and trash trucks. Those are the toughest vocations.

We took TES-295 (Castrol) that had run for 100,000 miles in NYC trash trucks, drained it out, and used it for our dyno durability test on the pickup truck trans. Came out great.

Top
#2443338 - 11/23/11 09:43 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: nascarnation]
gmctodd Offline


Registered: 11/29/07
Posts: 225
Loc: Happy Valley, PA
Originally Posted By: nascarnation
I worked with TJ at Allison and ran a lot of the dyno durability tests on TES-295 fluids.

Dex VI was intended @ GM for automotive fuel economy (a big deal when scrambling for every tenth of CAFE mpg).

TES-295 was intended @ Allison for best durability in city transit buses and trash trucks. Those are the toughest vocations.

We took TES-295 (Castrol) that had run for 100,000 miles in NYC trash trucks, drained it out, and used it for our dyno durability test on the pickup truck trans. Came out great.


So I'm guessing Transynd is your choice.
What is your take on Transynd not passing the DexIIIh specs? I know they mean nothing anymore, but the tes389 fluids had to meet the IIIh requirements.Why not the Transynd?
Thanks
_________________________
Todd

06 GMC Sierra 3500 D/A DRW-Wolfs head Extreme duty/Fram TG
08 Envoy-Wolfs Head Super duty 5w30/PL25288


Top
#2444636 - 11/25/11 02:38 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
nascarnation Offline


Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 617
Loc: Indiana
Don't know anything about the Dex III level H spec testing.

TES-295 was (likely still is) the gold standard for durability performance both in the lab and the our toughest "real world" applications. We had fleets where petroleum based Dex IIIs looked like shoe polish after 50,000 miles and Transynd was still going strong at 100,000 miles.

Top
#2598526 - 04/13/12 11:25 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: gmctodd]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
Tom Johnson is providing time and expertise on Dieselplace forum to answer questions about Allison transmissions and TES 295 fluid. This is his response to a question about TES 295 not meeting DEX IIIH spec by gmctodd. I don't know if it has ever been posted here or not. The questions and answers were easier to distinguish on the original post since TJ used red for his response.

I read on another forum that TranSynd could not meet the DexIII(h) requirement and lost liscensing when it went from (g) to (h).

1. Is this true? It is true. When GM wrote the DEXRON-IIIH spec they changed seal materials and test limits (I was part of that). We later found out that the GM factory fill fluid also could not always pass the seals tests because of (2) seal materials (namely N1, a nitrile rubber, and P3, a polyacrylate rubber). These two materials tended to experience slight shrinkage in many DEXRON-IIIH fluids including the GM factory fill fluid. TranSynd passed all the other DEXRON-IIIH tests with flying colors but it had problems with the (2) materials that showed shrinkage after the test. As you say, TranSynd did have a DEXRON-IIIG license number; but, in Allison's opinion, it was no longer necessary for TranSynd to carry a DEXRON-IIIH license since Allison customers were buying it for the TES-295 qualification and not for the DEXRON-IIIH certification anyway.
2. Does it matter? Meaning do the viscosity and oxidation benefits of TranSynd outweigh the differences between the DexIII (g) and (h) specs? No, in Allison's opinion, it didn't and doesn't matter. As I said, it's not like it failed oxidation, friction or viscosity; the failure had to do with slight shrinkage in (2) seal materials that many other DEXRON-IIIG formulations also had the same problem including the GM factory fill. The other performance parameters were much better than DEXRON-IIIH (viscosity stability and oxidation stability).
3. What are the differences between the (g) and (h) spec? Because for a fluid to meet TES 389, it must first meet DexIII(h) specs. (so they must be important). There were upgrades to friction and oxidation performance and GM also changed the seal tests and seal passing limits in DEXRON-IIIH vs the older DEXRON-IIIG spec. TES-389 is basically the same as DEXRON-IIIH except it includes an added test for Viton seal compatibility. We did this because some DEXRON-IIIH formulations tended to attack Viton seals just like DEXRON-VI did. We just wanted to sort out the bad ones so we let any DEXRON-IIH fluid test to see if they could pass the Viton seal test. It was easier than coming up with a whole new spec and new tests. I know that gets a little complicated.

Finally, If the DexIII spec is no longer validated how would somebody get a fluid TES 389 approved? Good question. Answer is they can't .... not yet anyway. Allison is currently in the process of rewriting the TES-389 specification to make it a "stand alone" specification. It will include all of the same type tests that were included with DEXRON-IIIH so oils that pass will be essentially the same quality as former DEXRON-IIIH fluids. This will allow oil companies to test their D3M products and get them qualified to an industry specification again. This is being done because GM will no longer review these older fluid formulations; they're only interested in approving DEXRON-VI fluids.

PS: I've seen some folks on these forums talk about DEXRON-IV (4). It never existed except in R&D. It never saw the light of day. So, GM went from DEXRON-III (3) to DEXRON-VI (6). They skipped DEXRON-V (5) because it sounded too much like Ford's MERCON-V (5) spec.

Here is a a Q&A related to the seal compatability issue that caused TES295 to fail DEX IIIH:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagolu
Was the slight seal compatibility/shrinkage issue resolved or corrected?
Kagolu,

It's been a long time since this all happened and I believe now that those (2) seal materials (N1, nitrile and P3, polyacrylate) have been removed from GM and Allison oil specifications. In the case of the N1 (nitrile) material, it really doesn't matter anymore because this material is not used as internal transmission seals; it's only used in o-rings where they are for External Use Only and contact with the fluid is not an issue. I'm really not sure about the polyacrylate and whether or not that matters anymore. Modern Allison specifications require testing on production seal materials that are used in such things as input and output seals and clutch piston seals.

Sorry but that's about all I know about those troublesome seal materials from about 10 years ago. In general, I do not think anyone should be concerned about this issue since the shrinkage was always very small (less than 1%). I do not believe that anyone would experience leaks or have seal issues because of this affect on these (2) materials.

Top
#2598556 - 04/13/12 12:10 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
1 FMF Offline


Registered: 08/12/02
Posts: 1514
Loc: CT
what's the deal with Dexron-VI (6) with Allison 1000 transmissions in the light duty trucks, specifically the 6-speed in my 2006 Sierra ?

There seemed to be some people online who posted that dexron-vi did not meet TES-295/389 therefore it was not a good choice even though GM says it's backwards compatible with everything that ever called for dex-iii. I think I may have also read something about the transfer cases too, or maybe it was just about the transfer cases and not the allison (don't remember).
But I know in the owners manual for my 2006 sierra 2500hd, for the M74 allison transmission it says Dex-6 but for the transfer case it says Dex-3.

Top
#2598567 - 04/13/12 12:24 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: disturban]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
Allison and GM have parted ways and GM say DEX VI for Allison transmissions. Allison say to use TES 389 or preferably TES 295 fluids.

GM changed the fluid spec for transfer cases that formerly used DEX III. They printed in the manual to use DEX VI, then in a bulletin said to use GM Transfer case fluid, which I think is also for some manual transmissions. Many believe it to be similar to DEX III fluid.

Top
#2601191 - 04/16/12 05:33 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Originally Posted By: onion
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Yes I do happen to know.


Awesome. Now could you give us some detail as to what specific criteria Trasnynd failed to meet? And some data to go along with it?

Thanks.


I think that I have already done that and quoted SAE papers to support my opinion.


Whitewolf- Is the info in the SAE paper about Transynd failing to meet DEXIII H specs consistent with TJ stating it is due to causing shrinkage of a few nearly obsolete seal materials? Since Allison had to change some seal materials to allow DEX VI, it seems Transynd is friendlier to seals than DEX VI. As noted DEX VI doesn't meet DEX III H either, and if tested for that obsolete spec, it would likely fail for the same reason as Transynd.

It appears to me based on the info at hand, your contention that DEX VI is a superior fluid than Transynd, if based on Transynd's failure to meet DEX III H specs, is a faulty conclusion.

Allison went through an expensive process to develop Transynd and the result is a fluid that doubles the change interval in severe conditions such a garbage trucks that may endure 30 or more duty cycles/mile.

A chosen base oil isn't the last word of fluid performance, but when PAO is specified, it indicates a desire to formulate a durable and stable fluid that offers superior performance at both ends of its operating temperature range. DEX VI, at best a group III and possibly a blend, isn't likely to be as durable in extreme conditions as a PAO based fluid such as Transynd.

Top
#2601252 - 04/16/12 07:21 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: ledslinger]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
Originally Posted By: ledslinger
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Originally Posted By: onion
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Yes I do happen to know.


Awesome. Now could you give us some detail as to what specific criteria Trasnynd failed to meet? And some data to go along with it?

Thanks.


I think that I have already done that and quoted SAE papers to support my opinion.


Whitewolf- Is the info in the SAE paper about Transynd failing to meet DEXIII H specs consistent with TJ stating it is due to causing shrinkage of a few nearly obsolete seal materials? Since Allison had to change some seal materials to allow DEX VI, it seems Transynd is friendlier to seals than DEX VI. As noted DEX VI doesn't meet DEX III H either, and if tested for that obsolete spec, it would likely fail for the same reason as Transynd.

It appears to me based on the info at hand, your contention that DEX VI is a superior fluid than Transynd, if based on Transynd's failure to meet DEX III H specs, is a faulty conclusion.

Allison went through an expensive process to develop Transynd and the result is a fluid that doubles the change interval in severe conditions such a garbage trucks that may endure 30 or more duty cycles/mile.

A chosen base oil isn't the last word of fluid performance, but when PAO is specified, it indicates a desire to formulate a durable and stable fluid that offers superior performance at both ends of its operating temperature range. DEX VI, at best a group III and possibly a blend, isn't likely to be as durable in extreme conditions as a PAO based fluid such as Transynd.


There seem to be a lot of questions in there, I shall answer what I *think* you are asking.

Regarding the seals. TranSynd failed the seal testing, so the answer is "no" TranSynd is not more seal friendly than a DEXRON(R)-VI fluid.

Regarding TranSynd failing DEXRON(R)-IIIH testing. Yes, it failed on the seals, but also apparently exhibits undesirable friction characteristics over time. For clarification, please look at the end torque shown in the SAE Paper and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Your statement that current DEXRON(R)-VI fluids would NOT pass the now obsolete DEXRON(R)-IIIH testing is true. BUT not because as you state it would "fail the seal testing" but because the new specification has a completely different viscometric profile, meaning, the newer generation fluids wouldn't even get through the bench testing. So although you're correct in saying that DEXRON(R)-VI fluids wouldn't pass the obsolete spec, unfortunately NOT for the reasons you are stating.

Let me give you an example : the old DEXRON(R)-IIIH fluids would start off typically at a KV/100'C of about 7.5-7.8 cSt. By 80,000 miles, they would typically have dropped to about 4.1 or 4.2 cSt. If you take a look at the published data, you'll observe that although a typical DEXRON(R)-VI fluid starts off at only about 6 cSt, after 200,000 miles they are typically still above 5 cSt.

That kind of data just proves, yet again, what I have been stating, that DEXRON(R)-VI fluids exhibit far superior performace than the older, DEXRON(R)-IIIH type fluids, which are of course no longer 'truly' available. Any company can put a DEXRON(R)-IIIH claim on a lable using suitable 'weasel-wording' but without GM policing those obsolete specs, you could be purchasing any old rubbish.

And finally, and you're probably bored by now ... but to answer your question about PAO type fluids being more durable, you have to realise that the use of PAO came into its popularity at a time when most oils were formulated with Group I base stocks. So, yes, at THAT time, it was a massive improvement in durability in terms of oxidative stability primarily.

However, that's around a 20-yr old "concept" and these days, you'll find that similar performance can be achieved by the use of Group III, Group III plus and/or combinations of those base stocks WITH PAO.

I hope that my comments have helped to show you that this really isn't an easy "it passes/it doesn't pass" question, but a far more complicated and far reaching industry objective to achieve continuous improvement which is obvious from published information and data from multiple OEMs.

At the end of the day, if you want to buy TranSynd and use TranSynd then nobody will try to stop you. It's a perfectly decent fluid for its intended application. I just want to make sure people are aware that the latest DEXRON(R)-VI fluids are far, far superior in durability and performance so they can make an informed decision on what to purchase.

Hope that has helped.
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2601278 - 04/16/12 07:54 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
Towncivilian Offline


Registered: 01/07/11
Posts: 918
Loc: Florida, USA
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
That kind of data just proves, yet again, what I have been stating, that DEXRON(R)-VI fluids exhibit far superior performace than the older, DEXRON(R)-IIIH type fluids, which are of course no longer 'truly' available. Any company can put a DEXRON(R)-IIIH claim on a lable using suitable 'weasel-wording' but without GM policing those obsolete specs, you could be purchasing any old rubbish.

Doesn't TES-389 replace the DEXRON(R)-IIIH specification for transmissions that require Dex 3?

Very thorough explanation, thanks.
_________________________
2001.5 Pathfinder SE 3.5L A/T 2WD - ML NG 5W-30/PL14610
2007 Altima S - PU 5W-30/M1-110
2009 G5 - PU 5W-30/XG9018
2012 G37 S - ST 5W-30/PL14612

Top
#2601320 - 04/16/12 08:35 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Towncivilian]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
Originally Posted By: Towncivilian
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
That kind of data just proves, yet again, what I have been stating, that DEXRON(R)-VI fluids exhibit far superior performace than the older, DEXRON(R)-IIIH type fluids, which are of course no longer 'truly' available. Any company can put a DEXRON(R)-IIIH claim on a lable using suitable 'weasel-wording' but without GM policing those obsolete specs, you could be purchasing any old rubbish.

Doesn't TES-389 replace the DEXRON(R)-IIIH specification for transmissions that require Dex 3?

Very thorough explanation, thanks.


Not unless Allison put into place a test programme and approval & licensing process that matches the requirement of DEXRON(R)-IIIH as it stood before it was obsoleted.
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2601345 - 04/16/12 08:49 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
ledslinger Offline


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 856
Loc: Missouri
Whitewolf- I am more difficult to bore than this. If Allison had to provide a serial number cutoff and upgrade seal materials for DEX VI, and all transmissions can use Transynd, then Transynd might be easier on seals.

Good point about the dramatic improvement of PAO vs group I, and the less impressive difference with group III.

Glad I have your blessings to use Transynd-I have a bunch of it!

"I just want to make sure people are aware that the latest DEXRON(R)-VI fluids are far, far superior in durability and performance so they can make an informed decision on what to purchase."

Do you base the above statement on: "apparently exhibits undesirable friction characteristics over time" or something else?

Top
#2601399 - 04/16/12 09:51 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: ledslinger]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
Read the paper again!
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2601554 - 04/17/12 05:03 AM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: ledslinger]
Whitewolf Offline


Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 1899
Loc: MI, USA
Originally Posted By: ledslinger
Whitewolf- I am more difficult to bore than this. If Allison had to provide a serial number cutoff and upgrade seal materials for DEX VI, and all transmissions can use Transynd, then Transynd might be easier on seals.

Good point about the dramatic improvement of PAO vs group I, and the less impressive difference with group III.

Glad I have your blessings to use Transynd-I have a bunch of it!

"I just want to make sure people are aware that the latest DEXRON(R)-VI fluids are far, far superior in durability and performance so they can make an informed decision on what to purchase."

Do you base the above statement on: "apparently exhibits undesirable friction characteristics over time" or something else?


TranSynd isn't easier on seals.
DEXRON(R)-VI is superior in all areas of performance, most specifically on friction characteristics and friction durability. Hence, the need to lengthen the duration of the friction tests in order to even see a deterioration in the newest fluids. Even then it's negligible.
_________________________
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what's really going on to be scared.
~ PJ Plauger

Top
#2631209 - 05/19/12 09:36 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
iskerbibel Offline


Registered: 08/12/03
Posts: 19
Loc: right hand of the ?
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
<snipped>


Now that is a thorough post- thanks for the info.
_________________________
Can't lead. Won't follow.

Top
#2746974 - 09/17/12 09:23 PM Re: Transynd Fluid? [Re: Whitewolf]
gmctodd Offline


Registered: 11/29/07
Posts: 225
Loc: Happy Valley, PA
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf


Regarding the seals. TranSynd failed the seal testing, so the answer is "no" TranSynd is not more seal friendly than a DEXRON(R)-VI fluid.

1.It appears GM's own fluid failed also. A quote from Tom Johnson to this question:" When GM wrote the DEXRON-IIIH spec they changed seal materials and test limits (I was part of that). We later found out that the GM factory fill fluid also could not always pass the seals tests because of (2) seal materials (namely N1, a nitrile rubber, and P3, a polyacrylate rubber). These two materials tended to experience slight shrinkage in many DEXRON-IIIH fluids including the GM factory fill fluid. "
2.Also, Dex VI failed the test for the viton seals in the early 06 Allison's.
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
At the end of the day, if you want to buy TranSynd and use TranSynd then nobody will try to stop you. It's a perfectly decent fluid for its intended application. I just want to make sure people are aware that the latest DEXRON(R)-VI fluids are far, far superior in durability and performance so they can make an informed decision on what to purchase.

If Dex VI is far, far superior why does GM require a 50,000 mile service interval in the Allison. And Allison says Transynd can be used to 150,000 miles
_________________________
Todd

06 GMC Sierra 3500 D/A DRW-Wolfs head Extreme duty/Fram TG
08 Envoy-Wolfs Head Super duty 5w30/PL25288


Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >